( 1 ) THIS appeal was admitted on 30. 9. 2002 and on that date, the execution of the sale deed was also stayed till further orders. The respondent-opposite parties have applied for vacation of the stay order. It is contended that a caveat was filed in this case but by mistake of the office, It was not reported. Therefore, the appeal was admitted and stay order was granted after hearing the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent could not be heard. It is further contended that the suit was filed for specific performance of contract of sale, which was decreed by the trial court, and the first appellate court has maintained the decree and there are two concurrent findings.

( 2 ) I have heard Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. P. Goel, learned sr. Advocate for the respondents.

( 3 ) THE first argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law, "whether the plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract". Shri R. P. Goel, learned Sr. Advocate has argued that this is not a substantial question of law and in support of the argument ha